Richard Blumenthal

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Madam President, yesterday's hearing of the commerce committee's subcommittee on consumer safety provided a powerful and important moment in our legislative process, and I want to thank my colleague, the chairman of that subcommittee, Chairman McCaskill, for enabling us to come together, as well as my other colleagues on both sides of the aisle, Senators Klobuchar and Boxer and Ayotte, for their very insightful and significant questions and comments on a challenge that should unite us on both sides of the aisle--the tragic events, death and life-changing injuries to unsuspecting drivers who were victims of a defective ignition switch in automobiles manufactured by GM; a car defect that should have been fixed, disclosed, and remedied before these deaths occurred. I want to thank the families of the victims of these defective cars for coming forward and being at that hearing yesterday and sharing their stories with me and others. They are doing a great public service through their courage and strength. I want to also thank Mary Barra, the CEO of GM. As I said to her then, and I will repeat now, I admire her fortitude and her service in coming forward to face the questions of our committee and be the face of General Motors on the issues that confront us now in car safety. I admire her career at GM--an engineer who has risen through the ranks, a second-generation employee at an iconic, great American manufacturing company. I have long admired that company and the products it has produced. They have enriched the lives of so many Americans over the years. My hope is this hearing and this process will be a turning point for the company in facing these car safety challenges. I admire greatly also its dealers and employees. Some of them have contacted me, especially Connecticut dealers, telling me how they are reaching out proactively to the drivers of these defective vehicles, asking them to bring them to their company so they can be repaired before they do further damage. This great company can reclaim its iconic brand and luster by breaking with its past, and Mary Barra has the opportunity for this historic contribution. As I said to her yesterday, she may be surrounded by a phalanx of lawyers and public relations people who will advise her to be cautious, to be timid, and to be reactive, but now is the time for her to seize the initiative and take three simple steps as a beginning. No. 1, establish a compensation fund for all who have suffered damage from this defective ignition switch which caused cars to crash, some of them to burn--victims who have suffered injuries and death as well as economic damage. No. 2, provide a warning--a clear, strong warning--to drivers still behind the wheels of vehicles that still have this defective ignition switch. The cars are under recall but unrepaired. People are still driving them, many not knowing the full risk they have undertaken by continuing to drive. A strong warning to ground those vehicles until they are repaired is what is needed now. Third, support our legislation. Senator Markey and I have offered legislation that would provide for better reporting by car companies, a stronger accountability system, and better disclosure through a database to consumers so they will know what the risks are before they take them and can make informed choices about what they drive and when. These steps are well warranted by the past misconduct of GM, but they are also potentially a model for other companies in doing the right thing--facing the truth, telling truth to power, and making sure innocent consumers are protected against harms that may not be known to them. She had the opportunity to break with the past culture--a culture of deniability and of deception. Deception is what happened at GM. These ignition switches were known to be defective. As early as 2001, year after year there were reliable and material facts indicating to GM it had a responsibility to fix these vehicles. Yet they took no action to repair them, to recall them, to inform consumers. And the fix was not a major costly one. It was $2 per vehicle--easily done. Yet in 2005, 2006, GM made a business decision that the price was too high, the time was too long, and it continued to provide those vehicles for sale to consumers. Then it deceived the U.S. Government. I have already spoken on the floor about section 612 of the agreement GM signed that indicated there were no material adverse facts at the time it was bailed out in 2009 as part of the reorganization. That deception is bad enough, but what happened as a result of that reorganization was a shield from liability, a form of immunity against legal accountability granted only because GM failed to disclose to the United States and to the bankruptcy court that it might well be liable and in fact was responsible for these defective vehicles. That shield from liability still bedevils the victims of injuries, death, and economic damage as they seek to hold GM accountable because GM itself is invoking that shield in courts today around the country and seeking to dismiss actions brought against it, seeking to return them to the bankruptcy court where the black hole of discharge will prevent recovery. I welcome the independent investigation GM has undertaken by a very credible and respected former U.S. attorney. I welcome the appointment of consultant Ken Feinberg, also well respected, with experience and expertise in providing compensation. But GM itself has still said there is no compensation fund and it will not commit to one. And as able as these two individuals are, the question remains, what will it take? What facts or evidence will be required to persuade GM to do the right thing? I think there is more than ample evidence--in fact, abundant evidence now--as to what the path should be, and I urged it yesterday on Mary Barra. GM should very simply do the right thing now: Establish a compensation fund sufficient to seek to make these victims whole. Nothing will erase or even ease the pain and grief suffered by these families and loved ones, but justice has its own virtue. GM has the rare opportunity in American corporate life to do justice and not wait for its consultants and its investigators to ``work through the issues here.'' Working through the issues here means doing right by those victims. Yesterday I asked Ms. Barra about the safety of the vehicles still on the road. She assured me they were fine to drive--as long as the key was not overloaded, as long as the ignition switch was used alone without additional keys. She assured me there was no more risk to drive one of those vehicles than any other in use today. I asked her about the contradiction of that statement with the recall notice itself. I am going to display it here. It says that these vehicles are risky to drive, in effect, if your keyring is carrying added weight or--and I emphasize that it is an ``or''--there are rough road conditions or jarring or impact-related events. Unfortunately, too many of our highways and our byways have rough road conditions or provide the opportunity for jarring events. Ms. Barra may believe tests and analyses done by her company she referred to yesterday assured her and GM that driving these defective vehicles is safe as long as it is done with only the ignition key, without the added weight of additional keys, but she must know, because she has children--as do I and most Members of this body--that they will drive with additional keys on that ignition switch. In fact, hundreds of thousands--millions of Americans have no idea that driving these vehicles with added keys provides that kind of potentially fatal risk. When these cars lose power, they lose steering, they lose their brakes, and they lose their airbags. Losing power, brakes, and steering is terrifying, but airbags are essential if power is lost and the car crashes, as victims of these crashes have discovered, to their sorrow and the grief of their families. This kind of pothole, a rough road condition, a potentially jarring event--how common are they? This photograph is from Surf Avenue in Stratford, a beautiful town along the coast of Connecticut. I could take hundreds of these photographs from Connecticut, which has better roads than many other places in our State or country. They are as common as the roads themselves. Those risks are GM's responsibility to warn. It has failed to do so. I asked Ms. Barra what evidence or facts would persuade her to issue a stronger warning. The recall notice itself said that risk increases if your keyring is carrying added weight--such as more keys or the key fob itself; the key fob alone adds additional weight--or your vehicle is experiences rough road conditions or other jarring or impact-related events. What would persuade her to issue this warning to consumers: Stop driving these cars until they are repaired. I specifically asked her whether evidence about drivers who have, in fact, experienced the power loss without adding additional weight to their keyrings--if they encountered these kinds of conditions and their cars shut down--would persuade her to change her view. She answered to me: Senator, if I had any data, any incidents where with just the key, or the key and the ring, there was any risk, I would ground these vehicles across the country. Ms. Barra, let me tell you about Laura Valle. In March of 2014, Ms. Valle, who owns a 2007 silver Chevrolet Cobalt, received GM's recall letter instructing her to remove all items from her keyring, leaving only the vehicle key. As the recall notice instructed, she continued to drive her vehicle using only the vehicle key. Yet, while driving with a friend, she lost power. Fortunately, she was on the right side of the road and she was able to pull the vehicle to a stop. There will be other instances. I know they will come forward to me, to my colleagues, and to lawyers who may represent them. Today I call on GM to issue that warning. There is more than ample evidence or, as Ms. Barra said, ``data,'' ``incidents'' where the key or just the key and the ring led to the vehicle stopping not because there was added weight but because they encountered rough road conditions or jarring events, which could consist of simply leaning the wrong way or the driver's knee moving. These vehicles create unacceptable risks before they are repaired. The advice GM should give to people is this: Bring these cars to be repaired immediately. Stop driving them. In the meantime, use the loaners GM has offered. GM has the opportunity to avoid another business decision. It may be more costly to provide loaners, but in the long run they will save lives and dollars. Finally, I ask GM to do the right thing again by supporting the legislation Senator Markey and I have introduced. This legislation is critically important to the future. It can't correct the past, but it can make sure that accidents are reported; that defects are made known to the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration; and that there are not only incentives for reporting but there is increased accountability for failing to do so; and require NHTSA to establish a publicly accessible, searchable database that will allow drivers and consumer safety advocates to connect the dots. Companies that are unwilling to connect those dots will be brought to justice, will be required to recall these vehicles and find out about defective models in time to save lives. Ms. Barra has not yet committed to supporting this bill. In my view, it is her responsibility to do so. It is the responsibility of GM to take this action now. She and GM have the opportunity to change corporate culture not only in that company but in others by setting a model--leading by example, not by their words at a Senate hearing or letters of apology but by action. Action speaks louder than words. Action speaks louder than the appointment of a consultant or an investigator whose report may not be made fully public. Ms. Barra was unwilling to make that commitment yesterday. It is a corporate culture that refused to make a 57-cent change to car ignitions--or a $2 change--even though that change would have saved lives. Now is the time to hold GM accountable, for GM to issue that warning that will help save others from a fate known only too well by those families who came to be with us yesterday. I look forward to working with Ms. Barra, GM, my colleagues, and with all who are interested in improving car safety and to using this sad, tragic, unfortunate experience as a turning point and a teaching moment--a rare moment--of bipartisan action to make our roads safer. Thank you, Madam President. I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Thank you, Mr. President. I am honored to follow the Presiding Officer, my good friend Senator Schumer of New York, and my colleague and friend Senator Murphy of Connecticut to talk about an issue that really affects quality of life, our pocketbooks, and our environment. But first I wish to join my colleague from New York in paying tribute to one of the great transportation advocates, indeed one of the great public servants of our time, Senator Frank Lautenberg, who preceded me as chairman of a critical subcommittee on the commerce committee which has authority and jurisdiction over surface transportation. I am tremendously honored to have followed him in that role, and my mission and ambition is to be as effective and eloquent and ardent as he was in this cause. It is a cause that brings us together as a nation, as my colleague from New York has so eloquently said. We are better when we come together as a nation and the railroads provide arteries carrying the lifeblood of our economy. Not only is the train used for commuters going to work and riders going to visit relatives and enjoying tourism, traveling, vacations, and other benefits of this great Nation, but it also transports the freight that is critical to carry goods and services. We know the infrastructure is aging all across the country. We are, in effect, transporting goods and services, products and people, commuters and riders in the 21st century using 20th century equipment, tracks, and other infrastructure. We are talking, indeed, about the economic lifeblood of our Nation, which has linked us coast to coast, north to south, and east to west in ways that are not only economically material and tangible but also emotionally and psychologically vital to our present and our future. These economic benefits will not continue. They are not an accident of history. They are the result of purposeful invention and investing, and we are challenged as a nation as to whether we will continue to invest to ensure that our railroads carry our freight and our people to places they must go if we are to have economic growth and jobs in this Nation. No one knows this fact better than those who live on the Northeast corridor. It is among the busiest. In fact, the Metro-North line is the busiest in the Nation. It has bridges and tracks that are more than 100 years old, and tragically we have seen the consequences of lack of proper maintenance, management, and inspection of our infrastructure. My colleague from New York has been a relentless and tireless advocate for improving rail service along the Northeast corridor and most particularly in the area of our region of New York, Connecticut, and New Jersey. The derailment in Bridgeport was a recent tragedy that resulted in the loss of lives and caused injuries as well as power outages which disrupted travel for as much as 13 days. These disruptions should lead to a new era of leadership at Metro-North, and hopefully it will. Good management is the key to making this railroad work better than it has and making it safer and more reliable. Good management is vital, but money, along with management, is absolutely necessary. In fact, good management requires investing, and that is why we are here today-- not to talk about money for the sake of dollars and cents but the investment it means in the track, the bridges, the cars, and other equipment vital to make this railroad safer and more reliable. We know some of this investment is small in amount. The Senator from New York and I have championed the idea of cameras facing inward and outward. Compared to the overall costs of investments, that one is relatively new. Likewise, alerters placed in cabs that operate the railroad cost relatively little, but other expenditures are much more substantial, and one of the problems is that money has been going into the system--money taken from the riders and users in the New Jersey, Connecticut, and New York area along the Northeast corridor has gone to the system as a whole. As I mentioned at the beginning, far from begrudging the national system this kind of investment, we support it, but we need our fair share, which is necessary to make the investment that is critical to bridges such as Saugatuck, the Connecticut River, and the Norwalk River. These bridges contain movable components. They are important for marine traffic as well as rail. They are frequently opened and closed. They experience more stress than normal, and the resulting corrosion requires trains to use reduced speed. Repair and eventual replacement of many of these bridges will be crucial for keeping train traffic safe and reliable not only along the Northeast corridor but also freight and riders traveling from New York, Connecticut, and New Jersey to other parts of the east coast and indeed across the country. It is a national investment, not just a Northeast investment. It is an investment we must make as a whole or our infrastructure will crumble and continue to erode. I am proud to join my colleagues to urge that Amtrak's full funding request for fiscal year 2015 be granted. This amount will allow the Northeast corridor's operating revenue to be reinvested back where it is needed most--the Northeast corridor--and will simultaneously provide much needed Federal support for rail networks in the rest of the country. A fair share is what the Northeast corridor needs and deserves. A fair share is what we are advocating. As my colleagues have explained, the support we offer and advocate for this Northeast corridor is a benefit to the whole country, and it is consistent with national support for railway travel which eliminates congestion on roads, raises the quality of our air, makes for safer travel, and maybe equally, if not more importantly, creates jobs. This investment will help create jobs and drive economic growth in the jobs it creates directly and the jobs it enables along the route of travel. I thank my colleagues for joining me in this effort, and I know, in particular, that there is a bridge in New Jersey--a movable swing bridge along the Hackensack River between Kearny and Secaucus, NJ. I believe it is called the Portal Bridge. That Portal Bridge is a key linchpin in the Northeast corridor. Having a functional Portal Bridge is essential to me as a resident of Connecticut. When I go from Washington to New York and then to Connecticut, we are one country. We are united by that railroad, and that Portal Bridge is a key linchpin in the Northeast corridor. It is as important to me as it is to my colleague from New Jersey who has been--similar to Senator Lautenberg-- a tireless advocate for rail transportation, and he has done model work on improving rail transportation in this country. I am happy to yield for the senior Senator from New Jersey, Mr. Menendez.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, in January of this year, I came to the floor to talk about and honor one of my constituents, Javier Martinez, who was killed on December 28 of last year, just as 2013 was ending. He was shot while walking to a friend's house in New Haven. He was 18 years old. In the aftermath of that tragedy, I have spoken with Javier's family and his friends about his life and legacy. As I said on the Senate floor a few months ago, Javier was a kind and intelligent young man, well on his way to becoming a leader in his community. He cared a lot about the environment. He worked with the Nature Conservancy and the New Haven Urban Resources Initiative to plant trees and protect endangered species. His classmates at the Common Ground High School in New Haven would like to plant a tree at the site of his death and dedicate a garden in his honor because of his interest in the outdoors and the natural resources that enhance the beauty of our world, which he loved so much. Yesterday morning I visited some of Javier's classmates at the Common Ground High School in New Haven. I spoke to a group of young people who were serious about ending gun violence because it is such a serious cause of heartbreak, grief, loss, and sacrifice--not just in New Haven, not just in Sandy Hook, but throughout our country in big and small towns, rural and urban neighborhoods, people from all backgrounds and different walks of life. I spoke to the Common Ground AP U.S. Government class, where the students and their teacher, Brian Kelahan, were kind enough to welcome me and share with me some of their views on gun violence and the justice system in this country. I told them what I firmly believe: that I have a duty to listen to them and to all people who live in Connecticut because they have a unique insight and a depth of understanding and perspective that should be shared here in Washington, DC, in this body and around the country. It is my job to bring that perspective, those insights back to Washington. So I want to begin by showing my colleagues a picture of those Common Ground students who were Javier's classmates. This photograph was taken at the top of East Rock. Unfortunately, it is somewhat indistinct as to who is pictured here. But it is overlooking a scene that Javier knew well with people who were his friends. They are dedicated to ending gun violence in this country because they know firsthand the toll it takes. They have been no stranger to gun violence in their neighborhoods. Many of them have to travel long distances to come to this school--the Common Ground High School in New Haven--from neighborhoods that are afflicted with gun violence, and they suffer the traumatic, emotional, sometimes physical threats that come with that exposure to violence. Connecticut also has been no stranger to gun violence over the last year and a half, and I have come to the floor many times with my colleague Senator Murphy to commemorate the courageous and strong people of New Town and in particular the families who suffered the loss of 20 beautiful children and 6 great educators. What the students who met with me yesterday morning wanted me to hear bears telling and repeating here. They were speaking truth to power. What they wanted all of my colleagues to hear and what I strongly believe is that as tragic as the mass slayings are in this country, no less tragic, no less horrific, no less important is the shooting of one innocent 18-year-old young man like Javier while walking to a friend's house. It may not make the national news. It rarely does anymore because we have come to regard gun violence, in a way, like the background noise of our society. It may not feature prominently in the headlines. Individual gun violence is a plague, still, that affects all of us as it affects any one of us. We cannot let these shootings continue in our urban communities. Many of them are committed with handguns. Many are the result of illegal gun trafficking and straw purchases. Far too many are ignored by the news media--simply disregarded background noise. Gun violence affects all of us wherever we live in Connecticut and the country. If anything positive is to come of these tragedies in New Town and New Haven--and in the 30,000 other deaths that have happened since New Town--as a result of gun violence, it should be the uniting and bringing together of all who have been touched by gun violence, which is all of us. That goal is one that will drive me, and I am sure others here, to seek an end to gun violence with commonsense, sensible measures, such as the ones we considered--background checks, mental health initiatives, school safety. The Presiding Officer helped to craft a very sensible and commonsense approach to background checks. We prohibit felons, criminals, mentally deranged people, and addicts from having these firearms, but we have no universal background check system to make sure they do not purchase them. How effective can enforcement be if there is no real way of checking who is buying these firearms? A young woman who is a senior at Common Ground, in fact, asked me what laws can be effective when people are willing to break them, buy firearms even though they are prohibited from doing so. That is an important question. The answer is that no law is perfect, none can be absolutely perfectly enforced, but regulations and restrictions on dangerous people having firearms can reduce the level of gun violence in our society, reduce the number of criminals buying weapons. Background checks especially have been shown--there is empirical evidence--to reduce the number of guns that get into the wrong hands. Students and teachers asked me about the way our country deals with criminal justice. Systematic disparities continue to plague our justice system, resulting in severely disproportionate rates of incarceration for young men and women of color. They spoke about the overlapping cultures of law enforcement and school discipline and about the need to reduce prison populations and bring about much needed reform in the way sentences are calculated, not only as a matter of fairness but also to reduce the cost in our society of incarceration. These young people are thinking about where our society should be going. What is our plan and our strategy for making our neighborhoods and communities better places and safer places to live? I made a commitment to those students pictured here in this picture that I would come back again. And I will. I made a commitment that I would tell their story, which is really Javier's story--a story of hope and promise, dreams and aspirations, cut short by gun violence because he was in the wrong place at the wrong time and murdered. That investigation may be ongoing, but we already know the answer to the fundamental question: Can we do something to reduce gun violence? The answer is yes, in his name, in the name of 30,000 people who have perished along with him from gun violence, needless and senseless deaths that are all our responsibility. I respect the Second Amendment, as I know the Presiding Officer does. I respect the right of people under the Constitution and the Second Amendment to own and possess firearms and use them for hunting, for recreation, target practice. I will continue to honor the memory of Javier Martinez and the lives and aspirations and homes of the students at Common Ground, and work not only to build that garden but to make the neighborhood around it safer and the community around it a more nurturing and better place to live. I have made no secret of the fact that I believe this body has a responsibility to act, and its failure to do so is shameful and disgraceful. The students of Common Ground agree. If their aspirations include organizing to make more people aware of the need for this action, I commend them. In fact, I urge them to participate in this effort. I wish to close with the words from a card they sent me with this photograph. The card read: Senator Blumenthal, we are so grateful for your help in remembering Javier Martinez, supporting our Common Ground community and taking action to stop gun violence. It means so much to have you by our side as we recover and make meaning in this incredibly difficult time. Know that we will stay with you in the struggle to build a safe and peaceful community. I know it sounds more like rhetoric than reality. But I will tell my colleagues in the Senate that as long as the young people of Common Ground and others like them are at our side, we will prevail in commonsense measures to reduce gun violence, and we will prevail in the fight to make America a better, safer place to live. I yield the floor.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. I yield back time.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Murray's Budget Committee's legal extern, Elizabeth Mendoza, be granted floor privileges beginning March 26 and ending April 30, 2014.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration en bloc of the following resolutions which were submitted earlier today: S. Res. 396, S. Res. 397, and S. Res. 398.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolutions be agreed to, the preambles be agreed to, and the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table en bloc, with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Madam President, I am here to express my support for S. 2124, which expresses the American people's support for the sovereignty, integrity, democracy, and economic stability of Ukraine. I also support the Senate taking up a modified version of H.R. 4152 so we can get this measure to the President's desk--something we should have done weeks ago. I thank and praise Majority Leader Reid for his commitment to this issue, his fortitude, and his patience--as well as our colleagues Senator Murphy, the head of the subcommittee of the Foreign Relations Committee, and my colleague from Connecticut and Senator Menendez, along with Senator McCain, whose leadership in spearheading this measure has been so instrumental. I believe the people of Ukraine need and deserve the opportunity to determine their own future. This goal is not an exceedingly ambitious one. It is hardly novel. It is the universally accepted principle that forms the basis for the sovereignty of all nations. Together with our European allies, the United States has encouraged Ukrainians to stabilize their country and hold elections this spring. We have taken these actions not to bring Ukraine closer to the European fold or separate it from its historic ties to any of its neighbors but to affirm the principle of human rights, freedom, and sovereignty, which is the bedrock of our own national security and ultimately the security of our global order and the rule of law. Russia's territorial expansion into Crimea destabilizes and calls into question the security of Russia's neighbors from Finland to China. Who will be next? What pretext and implausible denials will Russia use next time? Who knows, other than Putin and his inner circle. The United States needs a productive working relationship with Russia, and the world relies on us to be the one nation that can always be counted on to speak clearly and honestly about world events. Ukraine's deep internal division and chronic economic challenges are exacerbated by Russia's less than neighborly interests. I support targeted individual sanctions already put in place by the President. I thank him for his leadership. We will vote on those this week. But we and our European allies must do more. These measures must be the beginning, not the end. What we do on this measure is a start, a good step in the right direction, but it must be accompanied by additional action--not just words or rhetoric on the floor of the Senate but action that speaks louder than words, sanctions that bite, just as the sanctions on Iran had their effect and brought Iran to the table. Two years ago I worked successfully with my Senate colleagues on the Helsinki Commission to impose sanctions on government officials in Russia who were complicit in the murder and coverup of Sergei Magnitsky, a Russian lawyer and auditor who died in a Moscow prison after investigating fraud. This law serves as good groundwork and a framework for expanding these types of individually targeted sanctions, which should include travel and banking restrictions on anybody inciting violence and anyone who profits from the theft of state assets. I believe the legislation before us is an important matter of national security, and we should delay it no further. We have taken a week with extraneous amendments, and delay and time do not strengthen our hand. The fact is, as we have seen with Iran, we will need strong and strengthening sanctions on Russia to have real effect. This first step must be followed by more, and maybe equally important we need close cooperation with our regional allies to create a really effective deterrent so the Russians know their unilateral seizure of Crimea is condemned by all law-abiding nations and we are taking positive steps to isolate Russia. Russia's attack ought to be an alarm to the harm of Russian arms exports and military expansion that have brought effects globally and should be a focus of ours and international efforts countering Russian expansion. That expansion takes place at the expense of its neighbors, also sovereign nations, and at the expense of more than 140,000 civilian casualties. To my dismay and to the sadness of much of the international community, Russia remains the largest arms supplier to the Syrian Government. Russia is a chief obstacle in achieving meaningful progress toward a peaceful resolution in Syria, and they have undermined progress in Geneva, obstructing or watering down efforts at the U.N. Security Council and a variety of international forums to bring humanitarian relief so desperately needed within Syria and in the refugee camps. The Senate should take meaningful action to sanction Russia's arms exporters. These companies and individuals who benefit from contracts, both for the fuel they provide to the civil war in Syria and the takeover of Crimea, truly deserve not only our condemnation but action. That is why I am cosponsoring an amendment with my colleagues, Senator Cornyn and Senator Coats, to take exactly such action and why I introduced the Syria Sanctions Enhancement Act of 2013, which would create comprehensive sanctions against anyone who finances the murderous actions of Bashar al-Assad or sustains his military. I have also written the U.S. Department of Treasury urging them to take action against Russian banks that have undermined U.S. sanctions by facilitating transactions with the Syrian Government. That is right--Russian banks facilitating actions with the Syrian Government. Sanctions on them can have an effect because their activities have reportedly included facilitating payments for S-300 missile batteries, Assad's personal offshore funds, as well as payments for crude oil. In my view, these institutions--Russian banks, the financial structure of Russia--are complicit in prolonging the brutal conflict in Syria and should be barred from the U.S. financial system. Secretary Kerry said in February: Russia needs to be part of the solution, not contributing so many more weapons and so much more aid that they are really enabling Assad to double down. As the majority leader has said, we need to act quickly on the legislation before us. But let's begin and let this action be the beginning of the Senate working together on a bipartisan basis to push back against Russian adventurism and aggression in all its forms, whether it is in Crimea or Syria, and the institutions--financial, energy, and otherwise--that support those efforts. I look forward to joining with my colleagues in those efforts and approving this important measure. GM Call for Action Madam President, there is no question at this hour on the Senate floor that serious and severe defects in the ignition switches in General Motors vehicles have caused at least 31 crashes and 12 deaths. That tragic loss of life--not even counting the damage to cars, resulting in economic loss, and the injuries to people, resulting in suffering and emotional pain--is part of a situation that calls for action. These defects meant that in a car going full speed down the highway, simply bumping or weighing down the key in the ignition could cause the engine to shut down--as well as disabling the airbags. That situation has prompted leadership on the part of a number of my colleagues, and I want to thank Senator Markey for his legislative proposal on NHTSA, Senator McCaskill for her convening a hearing of our consumer protection subcommittee of the commerce committee, as well as others who have taken action to criticize General Motors. There is also no question, as the New York Times reported this past Saturday, that GM was aware of that situation--those problems with the switches--as early as 2001. That was 8 years before GM went into bankruptcy. The old GM and the new GM were separated. Now the Department of Justice is investigating whether GM committed fraud when it did not disclose those defects in the context of its 2009 bankruptcy. I have been a Federal prosecutor, and I can tell you about people who have been prosecuted very severely for lying to banks or lying to the Federal Government--lying to banks when they got a loan sometimes for as little as a couple of thousand dollars and false statements to the Federal Government in connection with a seemingly small matter. At the time it went into bankruptcy and then emerged, GM signed a document--section 6.12--entitled ``True and Complete Disclosure,'' and it said to the Federal Government that in return for not a couple of thousand dollars, not even a couple million dollars, not a couple of billion dollars, but tens of billions of dollars, more than $40 billion--I am quoting: There is no fact known to a Responsible Person of any Loan Party that, after due inquiry, could reasonably be expected to have a Material Adverse Effect that has not been disclosed herein. It also said that the documents that were submitted to the U.S. Government at that time ``do not contain any untrue statement of material fact or omit to state any material fact necessary to make the statements herein or therein.'' And that section is replete with other representations that now pretty clearly were false because those defects and the role of those defects in causing the crashes were known to GM. It knew also that those defects and the death, injury, and damage seem almost certainly then and now to be a material fact and have a material adverse effect on that agreement. Well, when GM was restructured in 2009, it was split into an old GM, which took most of the bad assets, such as GM's closed-down plants, and the new GM, which took the good assets. Old GM took the liability for accidents that occurred before the bankruptcy, effectively granting the new GM a shield from responsibility but not a shield from criminal liability. That is why the Department of Justice investigation is so critically important in holding GM officials and GM itself responsible. Although some prebankruptcy claims have been settled, they have a greatly reduced pool of money to draw upon so that the potential claims on the part of those 12 families whose loved ones perished, not to mention the injured parties who are due money for their suffering as well as economic loss and others who may have claims--all those claims will be without recourse unless something is done. Let's be clear about the 2009 bankruptcy. It was not the kind of reorganization that involved Manville, where a fund was created with a trustee. That kind of reorganization is a way that bankruptcies are often pursued. This was a sale of assets. It was fast and easy because the government wanted it so. And, of course, the old GM and the new GM--GM officials, shareholders, everyone interested--wanted it to be so. I was serving as attorney general of Connecticut at the time, and I warned that this bankruptcy agreement would leave many injured victims without recourse. I led a group of eight State attorneys general in warning the Federal Government--which supported and sponsored the bankruptcy plan-- that the situation we see now would come to pass. I don't take a lot of satisfaction in knowing that now we have learned the real facts GM concealed then. I don't take any satisfaction in the potential denial of what is due to the victims of GM's concealment, not to mention its reprehensible and potentially illegal failure to repair those defects rather than conceal them. But, unfortunately, that is what has happened. Due to GM's failure to disclose that known defect in its vehicles and facts that will continue to come to light in this investigation, everything suggests that this failure to disclose was, in fact, deliberate, fraudulent concealment of information from consumers and from government officials. That is criminal, and that is why the Department of Justice is investigating. As we stand here, we may be too early to reach conclusions but not too early for the Department of Justice to make things right and for GM to do the right thing. Yesterday I sent a letter to Attorney General Eric Holder. I told General Holder respectfully that I believe the Federal Government has a moral if not a legal obligation to take certain steps to protect innocent consumers, and I requested that he give it his personal attention. I do that again today--make that request--and urge his personal attention. Although consumer victims may be barred from seeking relief before the bankruptcy court, the Department of Justice can take steps now in the context of this criminal investigation that could greatly help people who have been injured--innocent victims who were driving that car down the freeway or on a country road when the ignition was bumped, when the key ring had too many keys and their car stopped, the airbag failed to operate, and some died. I requested the DOJ to have GM establish a fund to compensate injured consumers. It is a civil remedy that can be done as an interim step in a criminal prosecution. The Department of Justice has the authority to request many kinds of relief, and in light of the continuity of personnel between the old GM and the new GM, this kind of remedy would be absolutely appropriate for the new GM and it could simply allocate some of its assets. And fortunately it is doing well. No one begrudges GM its success. We welcome its profitability. But it can do what is right and use some of those profits to correct this wrong. If necessary, the Department of Justice also could enter into a deferred prosecution agreement, as it did recently with Toyota, and it reached a settlement there of $1.2 billion. There is also a precedent for criminal investigations of this nature being resolved by settlements in the BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. A $4 billion criminal settlement was distributed among groups working to mitigate the spill's effects and prevent future problems, including the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, which has done great work, and the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund. If such a settlement were reached here, there should be priority on ensuring that funds compensate consumers who suffered the worst losses--the loved ones of people killed as well as the innocent victims who were injured or suffered economic loss. In addition to the fund, I also requested that the Department of Justice intervene in pending civil actions to oppose GM's effort to deny knowledge or responsibility for damage. What GM has done is to remove State court cases to Federal court and then asked for a transfer to the bankruptcy court, all the while knowing that the bankruptcy proceeding cannot be reopened, and in any event the old GM has vastly insufficient assets to satisfy any real judgment. I believe there are answers here that will satisfy fairness and justice and enable GM to live up to the integrity and image that befits them. I believe that the Department of Justice, or another consumer protection agency, must ensure that consumers are aware of the potential dangers in this continuing defective series of vehicles, including the Cobalt, the Saturn, and other models over those same years. I would never let one of my children behind the wheel of one of those cars without a major repair. I don't know that anyone else should--or anyone driving themselves--be behind the wheel of these cars. When a large national company such as GM markets a product, they have a responsibility. They have a moral and legal responsibility to ensure that the product is safe. When one of those companies--any company-- becomes aware of safety issues, it has a responsibility to disclose them. I joined a bill--with the leadership of Senator Markey--that would require better, faster disclosure by NHTSA, and I will speak on another occasion about the lapses in responsibility on the part of Federal watchdogs who failed to protect the public, failed to detect a pattern of problems in these cars, and failed to blow the whistle. GM has its own responsibility, and I know that a new era of leadership at GM under a new leader may mean a new day in its acknowledging its moral and legal responsibility, and I hope for that new day. The innocent victims of defective cars suffered life-ending and life- changing injuries. Many of them could have been avoided but for the purposefully misleading and deceptive conduct by GM. Our responsibility now is to see that justice is done either through ensuring that compensation is made available or through appropriate criminal enforcement or both. The criminal law, as we know in this body, is a means of seeking justice, and it can provide a good outcome if it is properly framed and enforced. I thank the Presiding Officer. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to a period of morning business with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. I now ask for its second reading and object to my own request.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I understand S. 2157, introduced earlier today by Senator Wyden, is at the desk, and I ask for its first reading.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that it stand adjourned under the previous order.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. There will be four rollcall votes at 11 a.m. tomorrow and another series at 2:30 p.m.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 10 a.m. Wednesday, March 26, 2014; that following the prayer and the pledge, the morning hour be deemed expired, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, and the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day; that following any leader remarks, the Senate be in a period of morning business until 11 a.m., with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each and the time equally divided and controlled by the two leaders or their designees, with Republicans controlling the first half and the majority controlling the final half; and that following morning business, the Senate proceed to executive session under the previous order.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Why are we here tonight. We are here because if we fail to act, our planet will be destroyed. As exaggerated as that claim sounds, it is strikingly, irrefutably true. We are here because our future is at stake, and not only ours but our children's. We are here because of climate change, which is really climate disruption and planet destruction. It is real and it is urgent. Anyone who lives in Connecticut knows about the snowstorms and hurricanes, Superstorm Sandy, the rising tide that will eventually destroy our coastline, the rising temperatures that will emaciate our vegetation and our produce. There are real human effects but also economic effects. There are immense economic perils but also tremendous economic promise. There are immense economic perils but also tremendous economic promise if we invest in the steps that have to be taken to stop climate disruption. We can take advantage of the immense opportunity and obligation we face by acknowledging the reality that our planet is at stake and defeating and discrediting the climate change deniers, who are as much a part of the problem as any of the natural forces or elements at stake.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. That is why we are here tonight, and that is why we will stay the course. I yield the floor. The Senator from New Mexico.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. If I may respond to the Senator, my colleague and friend from Rhode Island, with a question that summarizes one of the key reasons we are here today. I see we have been joined by the senior Senator from Rhode Island who is senior to me on the Armed Services Committee and so knows better than I probably some of the answers that can be made to the question posed by the Senator from Rhode Island. But let me say at the outset, the military understands, in some ways better than America, the crisis of energy waste and climate disruption this Nation and the world faces. Indeed, the military has taken steps to be greener in its energy use, to use fuel cells and other renewable sources of power, because it knows the cost of excessive energy consumption, particularly oil dependence and energy reliance on powers that will do us no good and mean us harm. Energy dependence cannot be good for America's strategic interest or American defense. That is one of the reasons why our military is seeking to lead by example. I thank them for doing so. The Secretary of the Navy, for example, has spoken to me at great length, Secretary Mabus, about the use of new sources and renewable sources of power on the ships that take the navy to the farthest corners of the globe. So the American military is leading by example. But America can lead by example. Thomas Jefferson and our Founders thought America would be the best hope for the world in its example of leadership. Thomas Jefferson said, ``The world belongs to the living.'' Let us resolve that the living have a world that is worthy of that covenant we make as Americans to leave this Nation better and stronger than it was when we took over. Let's not have failed on our watch. America can be a shining example in what it does, inspiring the world by that example, not by its mandates or its military, but by its peaceful use of energy in a way that preserves the planet. We can use renewables. In fact, in Connecticut, we make fuel cells that can power the world in a much more energy-efficient and environmentally friendly world. Fuel cells are our future. They are made in Danbury and Torrington and the Hartford area by companies that are growing, another example of jobs creation and economic boom that can result from addressing the opportunities as well as the obligation of climate change. I have spoken on the floor about those companies, as well as about the Connecticut climate action plan launched in 2005, the main goal of which is to substantially cut the amount of greenhouse gases being produced within our State. In Connecticut, we are moving ahead, just as the Nation must move ahead with these kinds of initiatives. The Connecticut Sea Grant College Program, another example, understands the opportunity and the obligation of this time in our history. We can translate climate disruption into a positive through these kinds of measures we use to show the world that there are profoundly important gains at hand. The regional cooperation Connecticut has helped to lead in the Connecticut Energy Finance and Investment Authority, the RGGI program. That kind of initiative is, in a microcosm, what America can do for the world. So the question posed by the Senator from Rhode Island, who has helped to lead this debate, goes to the heart of what we are as Americans, as leaders in providing the world an example of energy savings, respect for our planet, addressing the problem that exists for us now, and denying the deniers their sway in this debate. I have heard from others on the floor about how it is all a product of our imagination, but, as Ronald Reagan said, facts are stubborn things, and the facts show, regrettably and tragically, that climate disruption is destructive, implacable, relentless, and only we can stop it. I yield the floor.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I am honored to follow my colleague and very good friend, the Senator from Connecticut, and to join him, the Presiding Officer, the Senator from Rhode Island; the Senator from Hawaii, Senator Schatz; and Senator Boxer, the Senator from California, in this really very inspiring and exciting occasion. I was driving to the Capitol early this morning and I saw in the black sky the beautiful dome which words can barely capture in its beauty. Many have tried. But I felt so fortunate to be here as a spokesperson and an advocate for this cause which truly is about the rest of this century, the rest of this planet's life, our children and their children, and to be part of a debate which has reached through the night. But in fact it is night only here. In many parts of the world already it is day. If we think globally, we realize the planet truly never sleeps. It is awake for the night here. Someplace in the world there is daylight. Hopefully, during this debate we have shed light at a time of darkness on a debate which is so critical to the future of our Nation. We are only a few Members of the Senate here, but I cannot help recalling what the famous scientist and conservationist Margaret Mead said about this cause and the importance of people in this cause: Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world; indeed, it is the only thing that ever has. Around the world where it is daylight or still dark, there are groups of committed people willing to put their lives and their voices on the line to save this planet from climate disruption. We are not talking about climate change. We are talking about disruption--planet disruption. We are not talking about small consequences which may alter the quality of life a bit here and there. We are talking about horrendous, gargantuan changes because they are incremental and they accumulate one by one, bit by bit, until they alter our shoreline in Connecticut, our vegetation, our produce, our recreation industry, all of what makes Connecticut the great State it is in its scenic and natural beauty, and all of what makes America the great country it is-- not only in its beauty but in its economic strength and its vision for the future. I thank Senators Whitehouse, Boxer, and Schatz for bringing us together, all of my colleagues for joining in this debate, and all who worked through the night--whether it is the guards or the pages or all who tirelessly gave us the opportunity to really make the case, much as we would in court--whether it is a closing argument or an opening statement--for the need that all of us unite in this critical cause. The gravity of climate disruption cannot be denied. There are people who deny it. No question that there are deniers. But the science is irrefutable. The facts are there. And as Ronald Reagan said, facts are a stubborn thing. We can't change them by rhetoric in this body, and we can't make them go away in storytelling. We can read our children's books, Dr. Seuss or others, about the wonderful things which happen in fantasy or nightmares which may occur to people also in their dreams. But in the real world, the science is well established. The science tells us climate disruption is happening as we speak, relentlessly and tirelessly. This is why we are here today. The compassion that we as legislators demonstrate indicates we care about the people who occupy this planet now, but also about the many others who will follow us. We are here to break the culture of indifference in a busy world which is awake all the time, is so global in its reach, and is digitally connected at all moments. There is a tendency to move forward and forget about what is fundamental and important, and that is climate disruption. To break this culture of indifference toward pollution and climate disruption, we must reverse the practices and policies which accelerate this dramatic and destructive trend in our world. In Connecticut we have already seen firsthand the effects of climate disruption. Severe weather events used to occur once in a generation. They are now becoming the new norm. These monstrous storms--whatever they are called, Irene or Sandy--they are the new norm. In just the time I began serving in the Senate, since January 2011, Connecticut has experienced four major storms claiming lives and costing millions of dollars in damage, culminating in the unprecedented Superstorm Sandy. Now we can call Sandy a hurricane or superstorm or whatever you will. We can call these weather events inevitable or surprising, but they are becoming the new normal because of climate disruption. In February 2011 a snowstorm cost the State $20 million, and the leadership of our Governor was exemplary, but remedying the effects of the storm does not prevent them, and even preparing for them does not forestall them, because the weather is bigger than any action of man, and man can control it only by fundamental changes in the way he or she lives. The snowfall in February 2011 was followed by tropical storm Irene that wreaked $546 million in damages. The people of Connecticut had barely any time to recover before a freak October snowstorm brought an additional $614 million of devastation to the State. Hurricane Sandy struck a year later, causing record-breaking damage and devastation to Connecticut as well as the states of New Jersey, New York, and Rhode Island when the storm cleared. When all this destruction was tallied, Connecticut found itself facing damage of $770 million as well as incalculable harm to houses, beaches, and other places along the coast. I toured the coast. I saw the damage. The ferocity and fury of that storm could be comprehended only by seeing that damage or being in the midst of it, which I was for a short period at the very start when I went to tour the energy operations center in places such as Norwalk and Greenwich, along the coast where preparation was beginning for that storm. Driving back on I-95 as the storm gathered in its ferocity and fury, I was frightened in a way that all of us should now share as we see the prospect of that fury and ferocity of nature, destructively impacting our entire planet, our world, and our children's world. We must heed Hurricane Sandy's warning as well as the alarms sounded by other storms and take steps to stop climate destruction and global warming. The evidence beyond the anecdotal facts that we all see is irrefutable scientific evidence. Climate disruption impacts our ocean and atmosphere, disrupting actual temperature cycles and variations in climate, leading to an increasing number of severe weather events, snowstorms as well as hurricanes, cold and rain, as well as heat and drought across the country. Severe storms and other things such as floods and tornadoes and drought are happening at a rate four times greater than the average 30 years ago. These storms are costing us. They are costing our families, local communities, and taxpayers more and more of their hard-earned dollars, and Connecticut families and our people are impacted severely. So Washington has an obligation and opportunity to act. This body must face the responsibility at hand and act in the interests of the American people. Climate change is a real and present and urgent danger. The threat is now. We should face this with a sense of immediacy just as we would a house burning or a storm coming, much as we did the coming of Sandy when the brave first responders, our firemen and police, braved the storm but did the right thing knowing they must act to protect our people. The sense of urgency this issue requires and, indeed, demands is lacking today, which is why we are here, to break the culture of indifference and despair. Outside the insularity of Washington, outside of repeated recalcitrance and political stagnation--dysfunction I think is the word most often used--which has paralyzed our politics, the American public is understanding. The American public gets it. They understand that climate disruption is happening. It is happening in their everyday lives. It is affecting their homes near rivers and oceans, affecting their drinking water supplies and the crops we need for food. They understand that if nothing is done this problem will only get worse. Communities in the Midwest know why they are experiencing some of the worst drought in decades. Families in California know why their water supply is dwindling dangerously lower and lower. Lobstermen in Connecticut, Long Island Sound, dwindling in number, understand why lobster numbers are shrinking. Surviving lobster populations are moving farther north. The lobsters are our modern-day canary in the coal mine. From Montana to Arizona to New Mexico people see why clearly the wildfire season is starting earlier in the year and lasting later into the fall. We have seen the pictures here on the floor of some of those wildfires that have devastated our forests. The American people understand why our forests are burning, and the American people get it, but Congress still does not. We have reached the time where we must do the job we were elected to do. It is time to fight for a remedy, fight for relief, to firefighters, to farmers, to lobstermen, to ordinary American people, who want to take their families to the shore and see it as they knew it when they were children. Every generation in this Nation makes a covenant. Every generation has an obligation to leave this Nation better than when we found it. We are in danger of leaving a lesser America in so many ways, most important in what matters to everyday life, our climate, our weather, our soil and trees, what we see when we wake in the morning and before we go to bed, the natural world that is essential to our survival, not to mention our thriving. In my home State of Connecticut the people are not waiting for answers from Washington. We have waited long enough in Connecticut, because Congress has not fully awakened. Indeed, it is still asleep. As my colleague Senator Whitehouse has said time after time, just a few feet from me, America and the world must wake up. The failure to do so, waiting and watching as disaster develops, could spell devastation for America and for our climate. That is why Connecticut is taking steps to address climate change effects like rising sea levels and storms. State officials are researching areas especially along our coast and along our waterways that are vulnerable to storm surges and inland flooding, and figuring out how best to protect infrastructure that is at risk. I know the citizens of Senator Schatz's State of Hawaii are doing the same, taking an issue and implementing policy to rein in solutions, taking steps on their own, voting with their feet, not just their voices but their actions. And that is what the citizens of Rhode Island are doing as well, seeking to do whatever they can as individuals. They are a small group of intelligent and dedicated people, but they are seeking to change the world for the better, because a small group seeking to do so is the only thing that ever has, as Margaret Meade has said. The citizens and states from California, in the Northwest and all the way to New England, are joining in this effort. This citizens' movement to save the planet from climate disruption eventually will prevail. Eventually there will be action. But will it be in time? I want to read an article in the Hartford Courant on January 27, 2014, just a few weeks ago. It captures how people of Connecticut are paying attention to the growing threat upon them and how they are taking steps to address it. I am quoting: The changing climate is expected to make Connecticut a different place with more extreme weather, hotter summers and more precipitation, disrupting the natural world around us and testing our ability to respond and adapt. Some changes will be volatile and abrupt while others will be more nuanced. For example, maple syrup production could decline while grape growing improves which would bode well for Connecticut's wine industry. At the end of the century Connecticut summer heat is expected to feel more like the sticky dog days of Washington, DC or perhaps, Savannah. A warmer summer could seem rather pleasant on its face if Connecticut were to have a summer more like those in the south, but the changes come with greater volatility. ``As the climate gets warmer, you put more moisture into the atmosphere, and it just gets a little more violent,'' said Richard Houghton, president of the Woods Hole Research Center in Falmouth, MA, a nonprofit research organization that focuses on environmental sciences. ``There's a lot more energy around. . . . that comes out in unexpected ways, generally not to the betterment of gardens and forests and so on,'' Houghton said. The changes have been studied and monitored by universities, state and federal agencies and others who have combed for decades of data on everything from changes in trees' growth rings to lobster habitat in Long Island Sound. Extensive collections of scientific data have been the source of documents for metaanalyses saying, in effect, that big changes are underway disrupting a mostly climatological period of thousands of years. Perhaps more worrisome is the likelihood of severe weather events such as floods. Quoting here: ``Even if you had the same amount of rain, it is going to be delivered in these more punctuated, very intense rain events, which are more likely to wash out bridges, roads, cause damage to people's basements, flooding, things like that that cost more,'' said Brenda Ekwurzel, senior climate scientist with the Union of Concerned Scientists, an organization started in Massachusetts Institute of Technology in 1969, and which is now an alliance of more than 400,000 citizens and scientists. ``We haven't designed our infrastructure, especially the aging infrastructure of the Northeast to handle these times of drainage needs.'' In 2007, the Northeast Climate Impacts Assessment was conducted by scientists at more than a dozen universities, including Harvard and Princeton, in addition to experts at the U.S. Geological Survey, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the U.S. Department of Agriculture. In 2009, several Federal agencies that are part of the U.S. Global Research Program released another large report with specifics about what will change and what will happen to the northeast and Connecticut as a result of climate change. Here are some highlights of the two reports: The northeast could see 20 to 30 percent more winter precipitation and more of that could be rain rather than snow, assuming a greater level of heat-trapping emissions from human activities. The higher emission scenario assumes a continued heavy reliance on fossil fuels while a lower emission scenario assumes a shift to cleaner energy by the middle of the century. Heavy downpours of rain have increased across the Northeast in recent decades causing intense spring flooding in 2006, 2007, and 2010. Cities that experienced only a few 100-degree days each summer might average 20 such days per summer while others, including Hartford, would average nearly 30 days at 100 degrees or hotter. Large portions of the Northeast could be unsuitable for growing popular varieties of apples, blueberries, and cranberries in a higher emission scenario. Heat stress could reduce milk production in dairy cows. However, the longer growing period could be better for gardeners and farmers so long as they can adapt to the likelihood of summer droughts and flooding rains in the spring. Hotter weather is expected to shift growth range for maple, beech, and birch forests to the north, disrupting the maple sugar industry and shifting the food sources for animals that rely on those forests, such as migratory song birds, such as the Baltimore oriole. Long-lived trees might endure, but they would be vulnerable to stresses of competition, bugs, and disease. Some parts of northern Connecticut will retain those hardwoods. Sea levels are expected to rise 10 inches to 2 feet by the end of the century, and those projections do not account for recent observed melting of the world's major ice sheets, which means the estimates could be too conservative. What is now considered a once-in-a-century coastal flooding in New London and Groton along the Thames River could occur as frequently as every 17 years. Several experts agree that modeling sea-level rise is more difficult than predicting other effects of climate change because there are so many variables related to the ocean. In any scenario, the seas are expected to rise. Houghton, the head of the Woods Hole Research Center, said that what happens to the climate depends on a multitude of factors around the globe--from deforestation in tropical areas to the burning of fossil fuels for energy. One important distinction is that weather and climate are different. Climate future does not predict when and where it will rain. Instead, it predicts patterns, such as overall warmer temperatures or the greater likelihood for violent floods, such as tornadoes or floods. For climate change, it is more about general trends and extreme changes as a result of global warming. As more erratic and extreme weather becomes more likely, property owners, town governments, cities, States, and the Federal Government will be put to new tests of their responses and adaptability. Dr. Ekwurzel said that maybe 30 years down the road we will have gotten better at dealing with those extreme events because they are going to become the new normal. I would say in the next decade--15 or 20 years--we are going to have some hard lessons as to how to deal with this. The work of responding and adapting is already underway and has been for years, though there is renewed concern after power outages and widespread property damage during Tropical Storm Irene and the October storm of 2011 and Superstorm Sandy in 2012. ``They were clearly wake-up calls,'' said Jessica Stratton, director of policy in charge of climate issues at the State Department of Energy and Environmental Protection. Connecticut has a wide-ranging climate strategy that ranges from buying energy that produces less carbon which causes further warming and a less predictable climate to better preparation for greater extremes. In terms of preparing for higher sea levels and inland flooding from harsh rain, there are three priorities, according to Jessica Stratton. First, Connecticut is researching areas vulnerable to rising sea levels and storm surges and inland flooding. Second, the State is looking to critical infrastructure, facilities, and property at risk in those high-hazard areas. Third, the State, and other parties, will work to develop best practices to protect infrastructure and habitat and to mitigate or reduce risk to the greatest extent possible. The last measure will involve assisting residents, State, and local government. In 2010 a committee of scientists, engineers, farmers, policymakers, public health officials, and business owners published a 195-page document called ``The Impacts of Climate Change on Connecticut Agriculture, Infrastructure, Natural Resources and Public Health.'' ``We think it is highly probable that we are going to experience these kinds of events more frequently,'' Stratton said of recent storms and flooding. She continued: And because of that, I don't want to sit here and just say, ``OK. We'll take it. We'll pick up the pieces afterward.'' Let us do what we can to lessen the negative impacts, and those are human, those are property, those are business losses. There are a whole bunch of things. So, let us take whatever steps we can to enable our society as it currently is to function as well as it can and to get back to normal as quickly as it can. I have quoted so extensively from this article in the Courant because it summarizes many of the facts that cannot be denied. Those facts are stubborn. Those facts presage a disaster that we have the power to ignore, but we also have the power to act and to deal with it and to take advantage of the immense opportunity that lies ahead. This is an opportunity that could actually create jobs and economic growth, and that is the key point. The problem of climate disruption is also a tremendous opportunity. It is an opportunity not only to change mindsets and culture--the culture of indifference--it is an opportunity to change the way we live, create jobs, a new lifestyle, and economic growth. The real and serious health impact of climate change impacting millions of Americans should be enough to force Congress to act, but if that is not enough evidence, let us look to the economic impact of inaction. Take the asthma rates--just one example of climate change impact on health costs. According to the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma, and Immunology, the United States spends approximately $3,300 per person with asthma per year. In the 5-year period between 2002 and 2007, asthma costs grew 6 percent, from $53 billion to $56 billion. NOAA, the National Climate Data Center, estimates that the extreme weather events that occurred across the country in 2012 alone, which included tornadoes in the Plains States and the South, the wildfires in the West, and the Midwest drought and Hurricane Sandy, cost the American economy $1 billion in rebuilding and lost economic productivity. That estimate is no doubt low and conservative. A rocket scientist is not needed to understand the effects that rising sea levels will have on our coastal communities, which include many of America's large cities and population centers. America's cities will be underwater, and we will have to rebuild their defenses at great cost. There is another side of this situation. There is a different side of this coin of climate disruption. Yes, climate disruption can be devastating to our economy; indeed, it has already begun to be so, but it also offers the hope and opportunity of spurring new technology, reducing our dependence on oil, and thus driving down greenhouse gas emissions in a way that will empower and drive economic growth. The U.S. Economic and Statistics Administration reports that the country's 2010 trade deficit in petroleum-related products was $265 billion or approximately $855 per American citizen. The EPA and the DOT--the Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Transportation--estimate that the corporate average fuel economy standards that require vehicles to be more fuel efficient and emit less CO2 by 2025 save $8,000 per vehicle over each car's lifetime. Upgrading and retrofitting buildings to be more energy efficient and creating jobs by creating new technologies and training workers to develop skills to execute the retrofit and to work in burgeoning alternative energy industries will generate tremendous return for our economy. The bipartisan Shaheen-Portman Energy Savings and Industrial Competitive Act, which I was proud to sponsor, is waiting in the wings for congressional action. It would create over 190,000 jobs and save $16 billion a year for consumers by 2030. We must make the Shaheen- Portman bill law. It is only one example of what the Senate can and must do to help stop climate disruption. It is a small measure--modest in its impact--but it is a start. If we do nothing else as a result of this debate tonight, let it lead us to bring back the Shaheen-Portman bill. So even if--unlike the overwhelming majority of scientists--you have doubts about the science of climate change, remember that the economic benefits of addressing it, even if you think it is a dream, a nightmare or some fantasy supporting renewable energy, promoting greater efficiency in motor vehicles and buildings will save money, add jobs, make for stronger buildings and better vehicles. Most important, it will save wasteful energy use. That argument ought to be enough to convince anyone that these investments are smart for America. So whatever your reasons may be, whether you are motivated by the need to ensure a livable climate for future generations, whether you are moved to action by Americans suffering by millions from health problems, exacerbated by a more polluted environment, whether you understand the threat to the U.S. economy that is created by not only the more intense weather events but a more efficient energy landscape-- whatever your motivation, whether it is fear or anxiety, apprehension about the future or simply a desire to save money from wasteful use of energy, the intense weather events are becoming more intense and they are becoming the new normal. Inefficiency in energy is becoming a norm as more people around the globe use energy, and we can lead by example in the United States. The Nation must wake up. Congress must awaken, and now is the time to act. I wish to close by reading some letters from the people of Connecticut because I think they speak eloquently to the reason we are here and the reason the people of Connecticut are taking this kind of action. They are letters to me from constituents in all walks of life expressing their personal feelings about this issue. Patricia Wallace of New Haven wrote: As the director of elderly services for the City of New Haven last year when we had 34 inches of snow, I heard from seniors who could not get out of their front or back doors and had no way to move that much snow, who could not get fuel delivered, who could not get food. I have a husband who uses a wheelchair to get to work. It was nearly impossible for us to move the snow that city plows pushed up on the side of the street so that he could get on the lift of the van to get to work. A few years back, many senior housing complexes lost power during Sandy and had no generators. When they were built, we did not face the frequent severe weather that is now routine. Two non-profit nursing homes have generators, but they are not built for the length of time we have had to operate during these severe weather storms. Another Connecticut resident named Diane Taber-Markiewicz told me: The global warming of our planet is now creating a push back from the environment that is causing millions of people around the world to lose their way of life. This affects us all and results in a loss of people and other valuable resources needed to sustain and progress our species. Personally, we deal with severe weather events regularly; power outages that cause us to lose work and cost us in wasted food that spoils during outages. Our local, regional, national infrastructure is dangerous in its deteriorated state and our tax dollars go to assisting the very companies and politicians who support our demise. Lenore Lewis-Foreman of Bridgeport wrote me to say: I have a nerve disorder. Because of this, the weather plays a significant part of my day-to-day activities. Some days I am okay enough to get out of bed and participate in society while being productive. There are days the pains are so bad that my eyes blur and I cannot move. The past season has made it increasingly difficult for me to even motivate myself enough to get out of bed. I have many family and relatives who have been affected by climate change. Some have passed on or moved to another State. A few have decided to stay here in the northeast and stick it out. Countless Connecticut residents, in other words, countless members of our communities across our State have written to me with their positions and concerns. Like these three writers whose letters I shared with you, many Connecticut citizens fear that climate change will disproportionately affect the most vulnerable among our population: the elderly, the ill, and people without financial resources. People understand that climate change will have consequences, not only for their personal lives but for our food and water, our way of life. People are already bearing the burden of climate change and disruption every day. They know that if nothing is done, it will only get worse for them and for future generations. Again, the time for action is now. America must wake up. Let me close by reading a small part of a book that was quoted earlier in this debate by my colleague from the State of Oregon, Senator Merkley, who cited the ``Lorax'' book by Dr. Seuss. It says in part: Now I'll tell you, he says, with his teeth sounding gray, how the Lorax got lifted and taken away. It all started way back, such a long time back, way back in the days when the grass was still green and the pond was still wet and the clouds were still clean. It goes on to describe the degradation and the tree cutting and the disregard for that environment. I know Senator Merkley has quoted it at length so I will not do so. But it closes with a very poignant and dramatic observation that maybe others, maybe many in this body have read to their children. I worried about it with all of my heart, but now says the Once-ler, now that you are here, the word of the Lorax seems perfectly clear. Unless someone like you cares a whole awful lot, nothing is going to get better, it's not. So Catch! Calls the Once-ler. He lets something fall. It's a Truffula Seed. It's the last one of all. You're in charge of the last of the Truffula Seeds. And Trufulla Trees are what everyone needs. Plant a new Trufulla. Treat it with care. Give it clean water. And feed it fresh air. Grow a forest. Protect it from axes that hack. Then the Lorax and all of his friends may come back. In a certain sense, the stories we read our children have a message they understand. Our children understand in many ways better than we do, because they understand what it means to play in the snow or have sunny skies or a day that is not filled with superstorms. They understand what it means to act individually, to take care of the environment and our planet. I would like to think it is because we have read them the stories of environmental heroes who championed the right causes, who cared enough to act. I would like to think the leadership of some in this body, their leadership by example and countless others across the Nation, who take stands, stand up, speak out against climate disruption, against the emissions that threaten the very existence of our planet, provide those young people with leadership by example. I would like to think they are learning from some of us and the stories we tell them and read to them from Dr. Seuss or others. The story from Dr. Seuss is not about games, about fantasies. It may seem like a fantasy and it may be spoken as a story, but it carries a message that the trees are what everyone needs; we need to plant them. Fresh air is what everyone needs, and we must preserve it. We need to protect this planet from the axes that will hack at them, as climate change most assuredly will do. Climate disruption--call it climate change, global warming, whatever you will--is a threat that we have the opportunity and obligation to counter. We are taking baby steps. We need great strides. America must wake up and so must the world. I yield the floor.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Indian Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on February 26, 2014, in room SD-628 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, at 2:30 p.m., to conduct a hearing entitled ``Early Childhood Development and Education in Indian Country: Building a Foundation for Academic Success.''

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on February 26, 2014, at 10:30 a.m., to hold a hearing entitled ``Treaties.''

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Madam President, I want to begin by thanking my colleague and friend from Connecticut, Senator Murphy, for the very eloquent and powerful remarks he has just made, showing America the Connecticut experience with health care, which shows that the Affordable Care Act is working and is expanding opportunities for health care across the country. Once the myths are exploded, once the truth is told, Americans will appreciate how fortunate we are to have this reform in the way that health care is insured and delivered for the American people. There are bumps in the road, as Senator Murphy has just said. There will continue to be issues to be overcome in achieving success. But the enormous potential to make America healthier, to eliminate the anxiety and anguish Americans experience in seeking a quality of life that health care affords, is an opportunity and obligation we cannot shirk. I am proud to join with him in speaking this truth and clarifying for people across the country the great promise of this program. A lot of the promise still has to be fulfilled. A lot of the realization about that promise has to be educated. But we will succeed in that effort. I thank him and my other colleagues who are joining us in seeking to make America realize the great potential and promise that we have, and already the great accomplishments that have been made. Connecticut stands as a model for both the promise and the accomplishment in the 130,000 people who have already enrolled in the benefits for young people now permitted to stay on their parents' policies, and, indeed, the elimination of preexisting conditions as an obstacle to insurance. I know about many of these issues and obstacles from my time as attorney general when I fought insurance companies that denied basic opportunities and failed to fulfill their obligation and impose these kinds of obstacles. Now, hopefully, insurers will be a partner in this effort, and so will the medical community and business community across the country. So I look forward to continuing this effort and thank him for the exposition he has given, and my other colleagues who will join us later today. I want to focus on a group that particularly needs health care in this country, and that is our veterans. We are here to talk about the Comprehensive Veterans Health and Benefits and Military Retirement Pay Restoration Act of 2014--a measure that seeks to address comprehensively the challenges our veterans face today. There are more and more veterans. We are losing some of the ``greatest generation.'' In fact, we are losing them tragically and unfortunately every day. But the next greatest generation needs the same benefits and services we have given to the ``greatest generation.'' The next greatest generation is serving right now and has served recently in the wars of Iraq and Afghanistan. We must be unwavering in our commitment to our veterans. We must determine that this big and broad bill is necessary to keep faith with them and to make sure we meet the diverse and urgent needs they present. We all talk in this body about our commitment to veterans. But all too often, our Nation has failed to keep faith. I have learned that we all have expressed here our admiration and commitment to our Nation's veterans. I have introduced, as have many of my colleagues, veterans bills based on input from my constituents. In fact, my very first piece of legislation as a Senator was the Honoring All Veterans Act. But the reality is this comprehensive approach is necessary. I thank Senator Sanders as chairman of the Veterans' Affairs Committee for recognizing that the needs of our veterans are interlocking, multifaceted, and manifold in the kinds of problems that are raised as they leave the military and enter the civilian world. Sometimes it is their medical records that cannot be transferred seamlessly from the Department of Defense to Veterans Affairs and Veterans' Administration facilities. Sometimes it is the failure to make their military skills transferable in credentials and licensing. And sometimes it is medical conditions, health care needs for post- traumatic stress and traumatic brain injury, that make their wounds invisible, make them difficult to discern to the ordinary eye but are there deeply and enduringly unless they are treated properly. That is why health care for them is so important and why this bill expands opportunity for health care so dramatically. The health care needs of our veterans must be met through the provisions of this bill that expand health care opportunities and services. When I first came to the Senate, I thought--and I think reasonably--that a veteran needing health care could simply go to a VA hospital to receive it. But that is really not the case. On January 17, 2003, the Department of Veterans Affairs announced that it would ``temporarily'' suspend enrolling Priority Group 8 veterans. That temporary restriction stands today. So under existing restrictions, a veteran making as little as $33,577 or a family of five making a household income of $50,025 can be denied health benefits in Connecticut. There are an estimated 720,000 Priority Group 8 veterans who are not enrolled in health care. Tens of thousands of veterans apply each year for enrollment and are denied due to that means test. Simply put, the VA should have the capacity and resources to serve every veteran. That is why section 301 of this bill would allow veterans who lack that access, who do not have a service-connected disability, and who do not have affordable health insurance, to enroll in the VA's health care system. There are other health care provisions: section 305, which expands the provision of chiropractic care; sections 331, 332, and 333, which expand complementary and alternative medicine. Anybody who has not yet seen ``Escape Fire'' should view it to understand the stark ways that veterans have challenges in access to alternative treatments and why drug addiction and abuse can become such a problem. And there is section 334, expanding wellness programs. All of these programs are vital, as well as the expanded access to treatment for post-traumatic stress and traumatic brain injury, which, in my view, are at the core of the need for this legislation. Section 342 would require the VA to contract with outside providers to establish a program of supportive services to family members and caregivers of veterans suffering from mental illness. All of these invisible conditions have such dramatic consequences in the employability of veterans and their ability to give back and continue to contribute to this Nation, as so many of them wish to do. The needs of our veterans are also pressing in disability claims. The need to end the backlog is, again, one of the areas addressed directly in this bill. The backlog of disability claims at the Department of Veterans Affairs has become a chronic problem. The VA is making progress. There is no question that the numbers are better today than they were. But there are still veterans such as Army veteran Jordan Massa in Connecticut, who served in Afghanistan, and Marine veteran David Alexander, who was deployed in Iraq, who had to wait too long and suffered as a result. We need to keep faith with those veterans. I understand and I applaud Secretary Shinseki, who has committed to tackling this problem. But some 389,000 claims are still backlogged. In Connecticut, about 48 percent of the claims are backlogged, meaning that 48 percent of claims made by our veterans take more than 125 days to be resolved. Each of these veterans has an individual story, a record of service, a record of suffering. Be it in today's wars or conflicts past, a record of service and sacrifice is exemplified by every one of them. These individuals may now be looking for employment, perhaps, to support a family. We need to keep faith with them. This legislation aims to decrease the backlog further through an accelerated appeals process and getting the VA the information it needs to decide these claims. It brings in local governments to help with the claims. And it helps veterans who have misfiled documents in the claims process to seek a better route to what they need and deserve. The bill also would require regular reports to Congress on efforts to eliminate the backlog. Accountability is so critical--accountability on backlogs, on all of the issues that underlie the failure to process these claims as quickly as they should be. And the backlog must be eliminated. Employment programs are also addressed in this bill. So are the traumatic effects of sexual assault. The bill is multifaceted and comprehensive, as it should be. To address the diverse and urgent needs, it must be big and broad because the needs and challenges of our veterans are big and broad. The reality is that 1 million men and women will leave the military over the next 5 years. One million patriotic and brave men and women will be separating from our Armed Forces. Becoming veterans, they will need services and benefits that they have earned, and they will need them at the time they leave, not at some distant point in the future. We owe it to them now to keep faith. I have submitted amendments that would address some of the other issues. For example, the need to recognize that post-traumatic stress is not only a condition that afflicts our current military men and women and veterans but also past veterans, even though it was undiagnosed and untreated at the time. Changing their status so as to recognize post- traumatic stress for the veterans of past wars is a need that we need to address. I will make sure those veterans of past wars, whether it is Vietnam or Korea or any of those conflicts in our history, receive a second look at their discharge. That is the purpose of the amendment. That is the purpose of legal action that has been brought by the Yale veterans clinic. I will continue to support it. We can go further as well to enhance our veterans' health by including the Toxic Exposure Research and Military Family Support Act in this measure. I have an amendment that will do so. Many veterans were exposed to toxic chemicals such as Agent Orange and their needs are only beginning to be addressed. In addition to the harmful effects to those individuals, there are also impacts on their children. For many years those who were exposed to Agent Orange were told there was no evidence that their symptoms resulted from that. Now that we have evidence Agent Orange is toxic, we need to include the longer term effects on their children and their families. The amendment I have offered would address those issues. Even if none of those amendments I have proposed are adopted during this process, this measure stands on its own as a historic step forward. It is, indeed, a historic recognition of the obligation and opportunity we have at this point in our history to make sure we leave no veterans behind and keep faith with our veterans, address their needs in a big and broad bill that reflects the urgent and diverse issues and challenges they face. I am proud to support it. I thank my colleagues on the Veterans' Affairs Committee who have approved many of the parts of this bill by unanimous vote or overwhelming bipartisan majorities. This cause should be truly bipartisan. Let's move forward and move America forward addressing the needs and challenges of its veterans as we have an obligation to do. We must keep faith with our veterans and leave no veterans behind. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.